energies

Article
Experimental Investigation of Inhibitive Drilling
Fluids Performance: Case Studies from United States
Shale Basins
Nabe Konate and Saeed Salehi *
School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, The University of Oklahoma, 660 Parrington Oval,
Norman, OK 73019, USA; konate1@ou.edu
* Correspondence: saeads@gmail.com




Received: 10 August 2020; Accepted: 29 September 2020; Published: 2 October 2020


Abstract: Shale formations are attractive prospects due to their potential in oil and gas production.
Some of the largest shale formations in the mainland US, such as the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS),
have reserves estimated to be around 7 billion barrels. Despite their huge potential, shale formations
present major concerns for drilling operators. These prospects have unique challenges because
of all their alteration and incompatibility issues with drilling and completion fluids. Most shale
formations undergo numerous chemical and physical alterations, making their interaction with the
drilling and completion fluid systems very complex to understand. In this study, a high-pressure,
high-temperature (HPHT) drilling simulator was used to mimic real time drilling operations to
investigate the performance of inhibitive drilling fluid systems in two major shale formations (Eagle
Ford Shale and Tuscaloosa Marine Shale). A series of drilling experiments using the drilling simulator
and clay swelling tests were conducted to evaluate the drilling performance of the KCl drilling fluid
and cesium formate brine systems and their effectiveness in minimizing drilling concerns. Cylindrical
cores were used to mimic vertical wellbores. It was found that the inhibitive muds systems (KCl and
cesium formate) provided improved drilling performance compared to conventional fluid systems.
Among the inhibitive systems, the cesium formate brine showed the best drilling performances due
to its low swelling rate and improved drilling performance.

Keywords: inhibitive drilling fluids; drilling performance; rate of penetration; swelling; torque;
friction factor

1. Introduction
Shale formations currently account for more than 70% of the oil and gas formations drilled in the
United States. Despite their attraction, shale drilling is not an easy task and could lead to excessive
expenses for the drilling operators. The most common drilling issue in shale operation is known as
wellbore instability. Chenevert et al. [1] reported that more than 90% of shale drilling problems can be
attributed to wellbore instability during drilling. Wellbore instability continues to be very detrimental
for shale drilling operations due to excessive increases in non-productive time (NPT). The major
increase in NPT causes an economic burden for the drilling operators. Awal et al. [2] reported in their
study that wellbore instability has an estimated economic loss of approximately 8 billion US dollars
per annum.
Wellbore instability is described a situation when the wellbore loses its integrity, eventually
leading to collapse and/or complete loss of the wellbore. Wellbore instability is mostly caused by
the radical change in the mechanical strength as well as chemical and physical alterations when a
formation is exposed to non-inhibitive drilling fluids [1]. Some major consequences of shale instability,
as reported, include the following [1,3,4]:

Energies 2020, 13, 5142; doi:10.3390/en13195142 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 5142 2 of 21

• Reduction in drilling performance and low rate of penetration (ROP);

• Stuck bottom hole assembly (BHA) and downhole tools;
• Loss of equipment and sidetracking;
• Poor hole logging and inability to land casing, and poor cementing conditions;
• Total collapse and loss of the hole or wellbore.

All these consequences lead to an increase in non-productive time (NPT) and non-drilling time
(NDT), and thus an increase in drilling costs.
Swelling as one of the main causes of wellbore instability occurs when shale absorbs water from
the drilling fluid. The shale’s ability to absorb the free water from the drilling fluid causes major
changes in the shale strength and its near wellbore stresses (radial stress and hoop stress) [1,3,5].
According to Mody et al. [6] and Van Oort et al. [7], water absorption in shale formations can generate
a reduction in support pressure of the wellbore, known as true overbalance, and eventually leads
to shale failure. This shows the importance of selecting the most suitable drilling systems during
well planning to ensure better compatibility between the selected drilling fluid systems and shale
formations. The incompatibility between shale formations and conventional drilling fluid systems
have led to an increase in the use of inhibitive mud systems. The introduction of inhibitive mud
systems in shale drilling operations has been a major improvement for shale drilling operations as
inhibitive mud systems tend to minimize hole instability and cleaning problems.
Low rate of penetration (ROP) is one of the biggest consequences of shale wellbore instability.
In order to effectively enhance and improve the ROP in troublesome drilling environments, such as
shale formations, it is imperative to assess the factors that contribute to the low rate of penetration.
According to Paiaman et al. [8], most of the factors that affect the ROP are related to each other.
These major factors can be characterized into five major categories: rig efficiency, formations
characteristics, mechanical factors, hydraulic factors and mud properties. Among these factors,
some of them can be controlled by the drilling operator while the remaining cannot be controlled
during drilling. Among these factors, some of these factors are influenced by the selected drilling
fluid systems. According to Bourgoyne et al. [9], it is quite impossible to change one property of the
drilling fluid without affecting the others, therefore making it impossible to assess the actual effect of
an individual parameter on the rate of penetration. The use of inhibitive mud systems provides better
control over the factors affecting the rate of penetration and improve performance. A study performed
by Konate et al. [10], Downs [11] and Howard [12] showed that the use of inhibitive mud systems,
such as cesium formate, greatly improve the drilling parameters such as the torque, friction factor and
lubricity coefficient. New frontiers in drilling fluid application, such as automated measurement of the
drilling cutting properties, will further help in choosing the best inhibitive mud system and control for
shale drilling applications. An automatic system is included to measure the particle size distribution,
concentration and morphology. Knowledge of these parameters is necessary, especially when drilling
in depleted reservoirs where particles are added for increasing the wellbore strength [13].

2. Study Gap, Motivation and Objective

Shale drilling continues to pose major concerns, such as a low rate of penetration, pipe sticking
and borehole collapse. The drilling fluid systems continue to be a major source of uncertainty in shale
drilling due to some incompatibility issues. Despite the numerous research studies in this domain,
the impact of drilling fluid systems on shale drilling performance is still not clearly understood due to
the complexity of the interaction between the shale formation and the drilling fluid. Bourgoyne et al. [9]
reported that it is difficult to assess the impact of one fluid property on the rate of penetration because
it was impossible to change one property without affecting the others. Most field operations have
focused on the use of oil-based mud (OBM) systems because of all the concerns associated with the
conventional water-based mud (WBM) systems. However, tight environmental regulations and high
operating costs associated with OBM continue to limit the effectiveness of OBM in shale drilling.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 3 of 21

The high operating and disposal cost associated with the use of OBM is mainly dependent on the
area of interest and the environmental regulations in place. Due to these limitations on OBM, the
introduction of inhibitive mud systems has gained a great deal of interest among researchers. However,
there is still limited studies being done on the overall impact of inhibitive mud systems on shale
drilling performance and stability.
The motivation behind this study stemmed from all the drilling fluid-related concerns encountered
by major operations in shale formations, such as Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS). Among the major
concerns, the low rate of penetration is one of the most common when inappropriate and incompatible
drilling fluid system is used. Analysis of a previous drilling report from different wells drilled in
the TMS showed major drilling concerns, such as pipe sticking, lost circulation and a low drilling
rate. Most of the wells in the TMS were drilled using oil-based mud (OBM) systems. However, strict
environmental regulations and the high operating cost associated with the use of OBM continue to
pose major challenges for drilling operators, thus the need for alternative drilling fluid systems that
will mitigate the drilling concerns while providing improved drilling performance.
In this study, an innovative drilling simulator is used to evaluate the performance of inhibitive
drilling fluid systems in mitigating shale drilling problems and improving drilling performance in
both TMS and Eagle Ford Shale. The drilling fluid systems were designed in the laboratory and used
for testing on cylindrical cores from the two formations. This study aims to provide a potential answer
to drilling operators’ quest for alternative drilling fluid systems for OBM systems. The outcome of
this study would provide more insight on the performance of KCl-water-based systems and cesium
formate brine systems in shale drilling.

3. Formation Characterization

3.1. Tuscaloosa Marine Shale

3.1.1. Geological Setting

The Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) was deposited along the Gulf Coast region of the
continental United States during the Upper Cretaceous within the Cenomanian–Turonian Stage
around 92–94 million years ago [14,15]. The Tuscaloosa Marine Shale is the middle unit of the large
Tuscaloosa group that extends through southern Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The Tuscaloosa
Group consists of three main units, which in descending order are the Upper Tuscaloosa Formation,
the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale and the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation [16,17]. Figure 1 shows the extent of
the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale basin.
John et al. [18] reported that the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale consists of shales with interbedded
siltstones, while the lower Tuscaloosa Unit consists of fluvial and deltaic sandstone, siltstone and shales.
The Lower Tuscaloosa, consisting of massive sands, represents the first transgressive phase; the middle
Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, and a portion of the underneath sandstone, characterize the back-stepping
phase of a transgressive–progressive cycle; and the Upper Tuscaloosa Unit, which consists mostly
of massive sandstones interbedded with clays and fossil fragments, represent the final regressive
phase [1].
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 4 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

Figure 1. Regional
Regional extent
extent of
of the
the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale basin within the eastern Gulf of Mexico
margin (adapted from [18]).

3.1.2.John
Mineralogy Characterization
et al. [18] reported that the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale consists of shales with interbedded
siltstones, while the
The mineralogy in lower TuscaloosaMarine
the Tuscaloosa Unit consists of fluvial
Shale (TMS) and dominated
is highly deltaic sandstone, siltstone and
by clay, phyllosilicate
shales. The
mineral, Lower
quartz andTuscaloosa, consistingisofreported
calcite. The formation massivetosands, represents
be highly the firstintransgressive
heterogeneous phase;
terms of mineralogy
the middle Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, and a portion of the underneath sandstone, characterize
as a function of depth. The Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) is characterized by its high concentration the
back-stepping phase of a transgressive–progressive cycle; and the Upper Tuscaloosa
in clays. A Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis revealed a clay content as high as Unit, which
consists
51% mostly
in the TMS.of massive
The sandstones
most common clayinterbedded
types include with clays and
kaolinite, illitefossil fragments,
and chlorite. represent
Unlike the
kaolinite
final regressive phase [1].
and chlorite, illite and smectite clays are highly detrimental to TMS drilling due to their sensitivity to
water. TMS formation is highly heterogeneous, which is reflected by the variation in mineralogy across
3.1.2.
the Mineralogy
formation andCharacterization
at different depths, as reported by Borrok et al. [19]. Their study of mineralogy
heterogeneity in Tuscaloosa
The mineralogy in theMarine Shale reported
Tuscaloosa Marine that the(TMS)
Shale concentration
is highly of most mineralby
dominated tends to
clay,
variate from the base TMS to a higher elevation. Their study revealed that the transition
phyllosilicate mineral, quartz and calcite. The formation is reported to be highly heterogeneous in from the lower
Tuscaloosa to the TMS
terms of mineralogy asisa defined
functionby of adepth.
decreaseTheinTuscaloosa
quartz content, anShale
Marine increase in calcite
(TMS) and finallybya
is characterized
slight increase in total clay content. Their study showed an average clay content
its high concentration in clays. A Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis of more than 40 wt%
revealed a
from
clay content as high as 51% in the TMS. The most common clay types include kaolinite, illite and
all the wells analyzed and the most dominant clays consisted of illite, kaolinite, chlorite and
smectite. These kaolinite
chlorite. Unlike different and
concentrations were
chlorite, illite andconfirmed by the
smectite clays FTIR
are analysis
highly in this to
detrimental study.
TMSFigure
drilling2
shows the FTIR analysis of a TMS core sample.
due to their sensitivity to water. TMS formation is highly heterogeneous, which is reflected by the
variation in mineralogy across the formation and at different depths, as reported by Borrok et al. [19].
Their study of mineralogy heterogeneity in Tuscaloosa Marine Shale reported that the concentration
of most mineral tends to variate from the base TMS to a higher elevation. Their study revealed that
the transition from the lower Tuscaloosa to the TMS is defined by a decrease in quartz content, an
increase in calcite and finally a slight increase in total clay content. Their study showed an average
clay content of more than 40 wt% from all the wells analyzed and the most dominant clays consisted
of illite, kaolinite, chlorite and smectite. These different concentrations were confirmed by the FTIR
analysis in this study. Figure 2 shows the FTIR analysis of a TMS core sample.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 5 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

Figure 2.2.Mineralogy
Figure Mineralogycomposition
composition of the
of the Tuscaloosa
Tuscaloosa Marine
Marine Shale (TMS)
Shale (TMS) obtained
obtained using
using FTIR FTIR
analysis:
analysis:
(A) (A) represents
represents the main mineralogy
the main mineralogy of the TMSofand
the(B)
TMS and (B) the
represents represents
dominanttheclay
dominant clay
minerals in
minerals
the in the formation.
formation.

Clays, such as illite and smectite, can be very detrimental to the TMS drilling operation if the
fluid system
appropriate drilling fluid system is
is not
not selected.
selected.

3.2. Eagle Ford

3.2. Eagle Ford Shale
Shale

3.2.1. Geological Setting

3.2.1. Geological Setting
The
The Eagle
Eagle Ford Formation is
Ford Formation is in
in an
an Upper
Upper cretaceous
cretaceous organic-rich
organic-rich and
and calcareous-rich
calcareous-rich shale
shale that
that
extends through the northeast–southwest band across south Texas. Figure 3 shows the regional
extends through the northeast–southwest band across south Texas. Figure 3 shows the regional extent extent of
the Eagle
of the Ford.Ford.
Eagle The Eagle Ford isFord
The Eagle characterized by a mixed
is characterized bysiliciclastic/carbonate depositional depositional
a mixed siliciclastic/carbonate environment
across the late cretaceous platform of the Gulf of Mexico. Condon and Dyman [20]
environment across the late cretaceous platform of the Gulf of Mexico. Condon and Dyman reported the Eagle Ford
[20]
Shale play is stratigraphically variable in terms of thickness, organic content and composition.
reported the Eagle Ford Shale play is stratigraphically variable in terms of thickness, organic content The Eagle
and composition. The Eagle Ford Shale play was deposited during a transgressive cycle in the
southern margin of North America, trending from the southwest to the northeast [21]. It is bounded
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 6 of 21

Ford Shale play was deposited during a transgressive cycle in the southern margin of North America,
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
trending from the southwest to the northeast [21]. It is bounded unconformably by the overlying Austin
Chalk and the underlying
unconformably early Cenomanian
by the overlying Austin Buda Formation
Chalk and the[22]. Dawson and
underlying Almon
early [23] reported
Cenomanian on
Buda
the major mudstones in Eagle Ford.
Formation [22]. Dawson and Almon [23] reported on the major mudstones in Eagle Ford.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Regional
Regional extent
extent of
of the
the Eagle
Eagle Ford
Ford Shale
Shale in
in Texas (modified from
Texas (modified from Hentz
Hentz and
and Ruppel
Ruppel [24]).
[24]).

3.2.2. Mineralogy Characterization

The mineralogy
mineralogyofofthetheEagle
EagleFord Shale
Ford is highly
Shale dominated
is highly dominated by calcite, quartz
by calcite, and clay.
quartz and They
clay. make
They
up more than 90% of the mineralogy concentration. Like the Tuscaloosa Marine
make up more than 90% of the mineralogy concentration. Like the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS),Shale (TMS), the Eagle
Ford formation
the Eagle mineralogy
Ford formation is highly heterogeneous
mineralogy across theacross
is highly heterogeneous formation. Mullen etMullen
the formation. al. [25] et
reported
al. [25]
that the mineral
reported that thecomposition varies as varies
mineral composition we move as weacross
movetheacross
play. the
Hisplay.
studyHisrevealed that the western
study revealed that the
wells
westernarewells
morearequartz
more dominant while thewhile
quartz dominant wells the
in other
wellssections
in otherare more clay
sections dominant.
are more Unlike in
clay dominant.
the TMSinwhere
Unlike the where
the TMS clay concentration exceeds 40 exceeds
the clay concentration wt%, the40clay concentration
wt%, of the wells of
the clay concentration analyzed
the wellsin
the Eagle in
analyzed Ford
thewas around
Eagle 20 wt%.
Ford was Figure
around 4 shows
20 wt%. the 4mineralogy
Figure compositioncomposition
shows the mineralogy in the Eaglein Ford.
the
Similarly,
Eagle Ford. toSimilarly,
the TMS,to thetheEagle
TMS,Ford is dominated
the Eagle by clays such
Ford is dominated as illite.
by clays suchThese clays
as illite. Thesecanclays
be very
can
detrimental and should
be very detrimental andbe accounted
should for whenfor
be accounted planning for shalefor
when planning drilling.
shale drilling.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 7 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

Figure 4. Mineralogy
Figure 4. Mineralogycomposition
compositionof of
thethe
Eagle Ford
Eagle Shale
Ford using
Shale FITR
using analysis:
FITR (A)(A)
analysis: represents the the
represents main
mineralogy of the Eagle
main mineralogy of theFord
Eagleand (B)and
Ford represents the dominant
(B) represents clay minerals.
the dominant clay minerals.

4. Materials and
4. Materials andMethods
Methods

4.1.4.1.
Materials
Materials

4.1.1. Core Samples

4.1.1. Core Samples
In In
thisthis
study, vertical
study, cylindrical
vertical core core
cylindrical samples were prepared
samples to be used
were prepared to beforused
the drilling
for the operations.
drilling
Theoperations.
core samples Thewere
core prepared usingprepared
samples were a coring machine with a machine
using a coring bit of 1.5 with
inch inner diameter.
a bit of 1.5 inchThe core
inner
samples
diameter. The core samples used for the TMS drilling were obtained from large size cores from wellsthe
used for the TMS drilling were obtained from large size cores from wells drilled in
formation,
drilled inwhile the Eagle while
the formation, Ford core samples
the Eagle were
Ford coreprepared
samples from
were outcrops.
prepared from All core samples
outcrops. Allused
core in
thissamples
study haduseda in
cylindrical
this studyshape
had a with a diameter
cylindrical shapeof 1.5 ainches
with andof
diameter height of 1.1and
1.5 inches inches. The
height vertical
of 1.1 core
inches.
samples were used to replicate the vertical wellbore in the actual drilling operations. The
The vertical core samples were used to replicate the vertical wellbore in the actual drilling operations. core samples
were
Theprepared for both
core samples wereformations
prepared for(Eagle Ford (Texas,
both formations Wilson),
(Eagle TMS (Louisiana,
Ford (Texas, Wilson), TMS East Feliciana))
(Louisiana, Eastand
Feliciana))
were properly and were properly
drilled. drilled.ofAfter
After drilling drilling
the core of the the
samples, coredrilling
samples,parameters
the drillingwere
parameters
recordedwere and
recorded
analyzed forand analyzed forpurposes.
optimization optimization purposes.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 8 of 21

4.1.2. Drilling Fluid Systems

This study focuses on evaluating the performance of inhibitive drilling fluid systems. In this study,
four sets of drilling fluid systems were obtained. A conventional water-based mud (WBM) systems
was prepared to be used as the reference mud due to its high degree of incompatibility with shale
drilling, and three sets of inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% KCl, 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate brine).
The drilling fluid systems used in this study were obtained in two ways. The conventional water-based
mud (WBM) and the KCl mud systems were designed in the laboratory, while the cesium formate brine
was obtained from a service company. The drilling fluid systems designed in the laboratory contained
materials such as bentonite (gel), lignite, etc. The concentrations of the materials are based on three
laboratory barrels. The formulation for the conventional WBM is reported in Table 1. The drilling fluid
systems were analyzed, and the rheological properties were obtained.

Table 1. Conventional water-based mud (WBM) formulation.

Products Concentration (lb/bbl) Percentage by Weight (%) Percentage by Volume (%)

Water 306 66.084 87.46
Gel 20.0 4.32 2.38
Caustic Soda 0.5 0.108 0.094
Lignite 4.0 0.8635 0.762
Desco 4.0 0.8635 0.714
Barite 128.6 27.76 8.58

4.1.3. Water
Deionized water was used to mix and prepare the drilling fluid systems to be used in the study.
For the WBM, the water was directly mixed with the other components, as for the KCl mud systems,
the water was solely used to prepare to KCl solution that was mixed with the other components.
The water requirement in both cases was determined based on the number of laboratory barrels of the
drilling fluid system to be designed.

4.1.4. Other Drilling Fluid Components

In addition to the water, the other components, namely bentonite, lignite, desco, caustic acid
and barite, were all used in the designing process of the drilling fluid mud systems. The requirement
for these components was defined by the number of laboratory barrels of the drilling fluid system
to be designed. All these components play a different role in the designing process of the drilling
fluid systems.

4.2. Drilling Fluid Preparation

The drilling fluid systems were mixed according to a practical procedure. The order of the mixing
was as follows: water or KCl solution, bentonite, caustic, lignite, desco and barite. The different
components were mixed using a laboratory mud mixer. In this study, three laboratory barrels of each
mud systems (WBM, KCl muds) were designed.
Two concentrations of KCl solution (1 wt% KCl and 2 wt% KCl,) were designed. The formulation
procedure for these two KCl-based systems was similar to that of the conventional WBM. The main
difference was replacing the deionized water in a conventional WBM with the KCl solution. The same
concentration of gel, caustic, lignite and barite was used for all two KCl mud systems.

4.3. Experimental Procedure

4.3.1. Drilling Fluid Rheology

Drilling fluid rheology is an important parameter for characterizing all fluid systems.
The rheological properties can provide insight into the drilling fluid performance in term of fluid
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 9 of 21

loss, filtration and solid and cutting transport ability. The drilling fluid systems were designed by
appropriately mixing the required components, namely, the water, bentonite, barite, lignite and others.
After mixing, the rheological model investigation was carried out in accordance with the API practice
(API 13 B-1 2003) using an M3600 automated viscometer. The viscometer is programmed to profile the
drilling fluid rheology parameters, including shear stress, shear rate and apparent viscosity every 30 s
at a set temperature. In this study, the temperature was set to 120 ◦ F, while the automatic viscometer
has a maximum operating temperature of 220 ◦ F. The rheological investigation was performed for
the inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% KCl, 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate) and the conventional WBM.
The automated viscometer is connected to a data acquisition system (DAQ) that gets a digital reading
that is stored in a computer.

4.3.2. Laboratory Swelling Test

The swelling of clay during drilling is a major source of concern for shale drilling operators because
of the potential setbacks that can be associated with it. The swelling test was carried out to investigate
the impact of the inhibitive drilling fluid systems on shale swelling. The test was performed on the set
of inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% KCl, 2 wt% KCl, cesium formate), conventional WBM and freshwater,
which was used as the reference fluid. Various testing procedures are available for quantifying the
swelling index; however, the most commonly used one is the linear swell tester. This testing relies on a
dynamic swell meter to simultaneously test different fluid systems for extended periods of time at
various temperatures up to 180 ◦ F. In this study, a simpler testing procedure that relies on a graduated
cylinder was used due to the lack of a dynamic swell meter. This testing procedure is very common for
testing bentonite and soil swelling. To perform these tests, a 2 g sample of dried and finely ground
shale from both Eagle Ford and TMS were dispersed into a 100 mL graduated cylinder containing the
tested drilling fluids in 0.1 g increments. A minimum of 10 min must pass between additions to allow
for full hydration and settlement of the clay to the bottom of the cylinder. These steps are followed
until the entire 2 g sample had been added to the cylinder. The sample is then covered and protected
from disturbances for a period of 16–24 h, at which time the level of the settled and swollen clay is
recorded to the nearest 0.5 mL.

4.3.3. Drilling Simulation

In this study, a high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) drilling simulator was used to conduct the
required experiments to investigate the effectiveness of the inhibitive drilling fluid systems in drilling
clay-dominated shale formations. The innovative drilling simulator provides a great opportunity to
simulate the typical downhole drilling conditions. A data acquisition system (DAQ) is attached to
the drilling simulator to effectively collect the real-time drilling parameters, such as weight on bit
(WOB), rate of penetration (ROP), torque and friction factor. The drilling simulator is set to sustain
pressures and temperatures up to 2000 psi and 500 ◦ F, respectively. The drilling simulator is equipped
with a core holder to effectively hold the core samples to be drilled. The cylindrical core samples
obtained from both Eagle Ford and TMS were effectively drilled and the drilling parameters were
recorded and analyzed. A total of 350 mL of the drilling fluid systems was measured out and poured
into a cell attached to the core holder. The drilling tests were conducted at a temperature of 120 ◦ F,
a rotary speed of 75 rpm and differential pressure of 100 psi. The rotary speed used in this study was
in accordance with the field drilling report. Each of these parameters can be adjusted to match the
downhole conditions required during an actual operation. A 1-inch PDC drill bit was used to drill to
the cylindrical cores prepared. The simulator was also equipped with a heating jacket that heats up the
system to the required temperature. A normal loading system was used to provide the support force,
which is correlated to the weight on bit (WOB). Figure 5 shows a schematic of the drilling simulator
used in this study, while Figure 6 shows the real system used to perform the experiments.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 10 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, 5142
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Figure
Figure 5.
5. A
A schematic of the
schematic of the drilling
drilling simulation
simulation setup
setup used
used in
in this
this study.
study.

Figure
Figure 6. Actual drilling
6. Actual simulator with
drilling simulator with the
the different
different components
components used
used for
for this
this study.
study.

Results and
5. Results and Discussions
Discussions

5.1. Drilling
5.1. Drilling Fluid
Fluid Characterization
Characterization
The drilling
The drilling fluid
fluid is
is aa major
major component
component of of all
all drilling
drilling operations. The importance
operations. The importance of
of selecting
selecting
the appropriate drilling fluid systems is much more crucial when dealing with clay-dominated
the appropriate drilling fluid systems is much more crucial when dealing with clay-dominated shale shale
formations such as TMS and Eagle Ford due to incompatibility issues between the
formations such as TMS and Eagle Ford due to incompatibility issues between the fluid and the fluid and the
formation. The
formation. The rheological
rheological profiles
profiles for
for the
the conventional
conventional WBM,
WBM, 11 wt% and 22 wt%
wt% and wt% KCl,
KCl, and
and the
the cesium
cesium
formate are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows the shear stress vs. shear rate plot of the tested
drilling fluid systems at a temperature of 120 °F. All the plots were fitted with a power law equation
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 11 of 21

formate are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows the shear stress vs. shear rate plot of the tested
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
drilling fluid systems at a temperature of 120 ◦ F. All the plots were fitted with a power law equation
where the consistency indices and flow behavior indices were reported. The rheological profile reveals
where the consistency indices and flow behavior indices were reported. The rheological profile
an increase in shear stress for the same shear rate from cesium formate to 2 wt% KCl to 1 wt% KCl
reveals an increase in shear stress for the same shear rate from cesium formate to 2 wt% KCl to 1 wt%
and to WBM. All plots show a shear thinning process as the shear stress increases as the shear rate
KCl and to WBM. All plots show a shear thinning process as the shear stress increases as the shear
increases. A decrease of more than 60% is realized in the shear stress when the inhibitive drilling
rate increases. A decrease of more than 60% is realized in the shear stress when the inhibitive drilling
fluid systems (1 wt% and 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate) are used instead of the conventional WBM.
fluid systems (1 wt% and 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate) are used instead of the conventional WBM.
The drilling fluid rheological properties, such as shear stress, can give an indication of the drilling
The drilling fluid rheological properties, such as shear stress, can give an indication of the drilling
fluid’s ability to control cutting erosion and integrity during drilling. Another important rheological
fluid’s ability to control cutting erosion and integrity during drilling. Another important rheological
property of the drilling fluid that affect its performance is the apparent viscosity. The apparent viscosity
property of the drilling fluid that affect its performance is the apparent viscosity. The apparent
characterized the viscosity at a given shear rate. Figure 8 shows the apparent viscosity profile for the
viscosity characterized the viscosity at a given shear rate. Figure 8 shows the apparent viscosity
drilling fluid systems tested in this study. The plots show a decreasing correlation between the apparent
profile for the drilling fluid systems tested in this study. The plots show a decreasing correlation
viscosity and the shear rate. The decrease in the apparent viscosity can be explained by the molecule
between the apparent viscosity and the shear rate. The decrease in the apparent viscosity can be
tendency of aligning with each other at a high shear rate to allow easier flow. The conventional WBM
explained by the molecule tendency of aligning with each other at a high shear rate to allow easier
displays higher apparent viscosity, more than 50% compared to the inhibitive mud systems (1 wt%
flow. The conventional WBM displays higher apparent viscosity, more than 50% compared to the
and 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate). The low apparent viscosity realized with the inhibitive mud
inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% and 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate). The low apparent viscosity
systems indicated easier flow compared to the conventional WBM. The apparent viscosity also relates
realized with the inhibitive mud systems indicated easier flow compared to the conventional WBM.
to the fluid’s ability to effectively remove solids during drilling. In their study, Saasen et al. [26]
The apparent viscosity also relates to the fluid’s ability to effectively remove solids during drilling.
showed that there is a strong correlation between the apparent viscosity and the total suspended
In their study, Saasen et al. [26] showed that there is a strong correlation between the apparent
solids (TSS) content. Their study implied that the apparent viscosity increases if the solid content
viscosity and the total suspended solids (TSS) content. Their study implied that the apparent viscosity
increases. The apparent viscosity is an important parameter for quantifying a drilling fluid’s ability to
increases if the solid content increases. The apparent viscosity is an important parameter for quantifying
suspend solids and the cutting’s retention. There exist different additives, such as nanomaterials, to
a drilling fluid’s ability to suspend solids and the cutting’s retention. There exist different additives,
help the altered drilling fluid viscosity favorably for downhole conditions. The low shear stress at the
such as nanomaterials, to help the altered drilling fluid viscosity favorably for downhole conditions.
same shear rate observed with the inhibitive drilling fluid systems can also be explained by the low
The low shear stress at the same shear rate observed with the inhibitive drilling fluid systems can also
clay–water interaction, which suppresses the development of viscosity.
be explained by the low clay–water interaction, which suppresses the development of viscosity.

20
1% KCl
18
2% KCl
16
WBM τ=
14 0.321ϒ0.560
3
Shear Stress ( Pa)

12

10

6
τ=
0.044ϒ0.6
4 447

τ=
2 0.014ϒ0.7
833

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate (1/s)
Figure
Figure7.7.The shear
The stress
shear vs. vs.
stress shear rate rate
shear profiles at 120at°F120
profiles ◦ F of
of the drilling fluid systems
the drilling tested in
fluid systems this in
tested
study.
this study.
Energies 2020,13,
Energies2020, 13,5142
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
12 of 21
22

250
1% KCl
2% KCl
200 WBM
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

Cesium Formate

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate (1/s)
◦ F of the drilling fluid systems tested in this study.
Figure 8. Apparent
Figure 8. Apparent viscosity
viscosity profile
profile at
at 120
120 °F of the drilling fluid systems tested in this study.
5.2. Linear Swelling Characterization
5.2. Linear Swelling Characterization
Shale swelling is an important parameter to evaluate when characterizing the shale–fluid
Shale swelling is an important parameter to evaluate when characterizing the shale–fluid
interaction. The linear swelling is used to quantify the linear expansion of clay when exposed to drilling
interaction. The linear swelling is used to quantify the linear expansion of clay when exposed to
fluid systems. Shale swelling is very common in clay-dominated formations, such TMS and Eagle Ford.
drilling fluid systems. Shale swelling is very common in clay-dominated formations, such TMS and
Shale swelling is very detrimental for drilling operations due all the concerns it engenders. The level
Eagle Ford. Shale swelling is very detrimental for drilling operations due all the concerns it
of swelling is both influenced by the shale formation and the drilling fluid system. The swelling index
engenders. The level of swelling is both influenced by the shale formation and the drilling fluid
shows the effect of different drilling fluid systems on clay expansion during the drilling operations.
system. The swelling index shows the effect of different drilling fluid systems on clay expansion
In this study, the swelling index was computed based on the change in volume after a certain period of
during the drilling operations. In this study, the swelling index was computed based on the change
time. It was obtained from the equation below.
in volume after a certain period of time. It was obtained from the equation below.
H − H0
σ𝜎== 𝐻11 − 𝐻0 ×× 100
100 (1)
(1)
H
𝐻0 0

where H0 represents the initial volume of the mixture, H1 the final volume of the mixture (24 h) and σ
where 𝐻0 represents the initial volume of the mixture, 𝐻1 the final volume of the mixture (24 h) and
the swelling index.
𝜎 the swelling index.
The swelling index was obtained for the four drilling fluid systems tested in this study for TMS
The swelling
and Eagle indexwhile
Foard shale, was obtained for the four
using freshwater drilling
as the fluid fluid.
reference systems tested
Figure in this study
9 displays for TMS
the different
and Eagle
swelling Foardobtained.
indices shale, while
The using
profilefreshwater as the
revealed that reference
freshwater fluid. Figure
displayed 9 displays
the highest the different
swelling index in
swelling indices obtained. The profile revealed that freshwater displayed the highest
both formations (TMS and Eagle Ford) while cesium formate showed the lowest. Freshwater showed swelling index
a
in both formations (TMS and Eagle Ford) while cesium formate showed the lowest. Freshwater
higher swelling index due to the presence of the water-sensitive clay (illite, kaolinite and smectite) in
showed
the a higher
formation. swelling
Among the index due
drilling to the
fluid, thepresence of theWBM
conventional water-sensitive
showed theclay (illite,
highest kaolinite
swelling and
index
smectite) in the formation. Among the drilling fluid, the conventional WBM showed the highest
followed by the 1 wt% KCl, the 2 wt% KCL and then the cesium formate. The same trend was observed
swelling
in index followed
both formations. by the 1 wt%
A comparative KCl, of
approach the 2 wt% in
swelling KCL
bothand then the showed
formations cesium formate. The same
that the Tuscaloosa
trend was observed in both formations. A comparative approach of swelling in both formations
Marine Shale (TMS) displayed a higher swelling for all fluid systems tested. This shows that the TMS
showed that the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) displayed a higher swelling for all fluid systems
could have a higher water-sensitive clay compared to the Eagle Ford. Analysis of the mineralogy in
tested. This shows that the TMS could have a higher water-sensitive clay compared to the Eagle Ford.
both formations confirmed a higher concentration of expandable clays such as smectite in TMS as
Analysis of the mineralogy in both formations confirmed a higher concentration of expandable clays
such as smectite in TMS as opposed to Eagle Ford. This indicates that the use of inhibitive mud
systems should be more critical in TMS as compared to Eagle Ford.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 13 of 21

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

opposed to Eagle Ford. This indicates that the use of inhibitive mud systems should be more critical in
TMSInasboth
compared to Eagle
formations, theFord.
study revealed the impact of the inhibitive mud systems in minimizing
the swelling during drilling, thus revealed
In both formations, the study providing the impact
better of the performance
drilling inhibitive mud bysystems in minimizing
minimizing the
the drilling
swelling during drilling, thus providing better drilling performance by minimizing
concerns, such as a stuck pipe, borehole collapse, etc., and reducing the non-drilling time (NDT). The the drilling concerns,
such as a stuck
effectiveness ofpipe, borehole
inhibitive fluid collapse,
systems,etc.,
suchandasreducing the non-drilling
cesium formate and the time (NDT).fluid
KCl-based The effectiveness
systems, in
of inhibitive
controlling fluid
clay systems,
swelling hassuch
been as cesium formate
previously explained andbythe KCl-based
authors such asfluid
Vansystems,
Oort [7],in controlling
John Downs
clay swelling has been previously explained by authors such as Van Oort
[11] and Siv Howard [12]. The low swelling rate observed with the cesium formate and KCl-based [7], John Downs [11] and
Siv Howard
fluid systems[12].
can The low swelling
be explained ratepresence
by the observedof with
thethe
Cs+cesium
and K+formate and KCl-based
ions, respectively, fluid
since systems
these ions
can be explained by the presence of the Cs + and K+ ions, respectively, since these ions tend to have the
tend to have the ability to lower the hydration tendency of reactive clays such as smectite compared
ability
to othertobivalent
lower the hydration
ions. The small tendency of reactive
size of the potassiumclays such
ions (Kas smectite the
+) increase compared to other
inhibitive abilitybivalent
of the
ions. The small size of the potassium ions (K + ) increase the inhibitive ability of the KCl-based fluid
KCl-based fluid systems as they can easily fit into the montmorillonite structure to limit hydration
systems as they can easily fit into the montmorillonite structure to limit hydration
[27–29]. Similarly, the cesium ion (Cs+), which has an even smaller size than the K+ ion, explains the [27–29]. Similarly,
improved ion (Cs+inhibition
the cesiumswelling ), which has an even with
associated smaller size than
cesium the K+ ion, explains the improved swelling
formate.
inhibition associated with cesium formate.

35
Swelling Index (%)

30 Eagleford TMS
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 9. Swelling index profile of the drilling fluid systems tested in this study, with freshwater as the
reference
Figure fluid. index profile of the drilling fluid systems tested in this study, with freshwater as
9. Swelling
the reference fluid.
5.3. Drilling Parameters
5.3. Drilling Parameters
In order to effectively evaluate the performance of the drilling fluid systems, it is crucial to analyze
their impact on drilling parameters such as torque, friction factor, rate of penetration (ROP) and the
In order to effectively evaluate the performance of the drilling fluid systems, it is crucial to
mechanical specific energy (MSE).
analyze their impact on drilling parameters such as torque, friction factor, rate of penetration (ROP)
and theTorque
5.3.1. mechanical specificFactor
and Friction energy (MSE).
during Drilling

5.3.1. The excessive

Torque torqueFactor
and Friction and friction
Duringfactor during drilling constitute a major concern for all the
Drilling
drilling operators. The excessive torque and friction factor during drilling could be an indication of
The excessive torque and friction factor during drilling constitute a major concern for all the
possible pipe sticking, which is one cause of wellbore instability. High torque and drag forces, as well
drilling operators. The excessive torque and friction factor during drilling could be an indication of
as the friction factor, constitute major limitations in extended reach, direction wells and deep wells as
possible pipe sticking, which is one cause of wellbore instability. High torque and drag forces, as well
they prevent operators from reaching the target or increase the total drilling time. Drilling performance
as the friction factor, constitute major limitations in extended reach, direction wells and deep wells
can be improved by minimizing both the torque and friction factor during drilling. In this study,
as they prevent operators from reaching the target or increase the total drilling time. Drilling
the effect of inhibitive mud systems on the torque and friction factor during drilling was evaluated
performance can be improved by minimizing both the torque and friction factor during drilling. In
this study, the effect of inhibitive mud systems on the torque and friction factor during drilling was
evaluated for both formations (TMS and Eagle Ford). Figures 10 and 11 show the torque and friction
factor profiles, respectively. The profiles revealed an increasing relationship between both the torque
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 14 of 21

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

for both formations (TMS and Eagle Ford). Figures 10 and 11 show the torque and friction factor
profiles,
and therespectively.
friction factor The andprofiles revealed
the weight onanbitincreasing relationship
(WOB). Among betweenfluid
the drilling bothsystems
the torque and the
tested, the
friction factor and
conventional WBM theshowed
weight the on bit (WOB).
highest Among
torque andthe drilling
friction fluidwhile
factor systems tested, the
the cesium conventional
formate showed
WBM showed the
the minimum. Thehighest
inhibitivetorque
mud and friction
systems factor while
showed the cesium
a reduction of more formate showed
than 50%. Thisthe minimum.
indicates that
The inhibitive mud systems showed a reduction of more than 50%. This
all three inhibitive mud systems tested in this study provide a better drilling performance as opposed indicates that all three
inhibitive mud systems
to the conventional WBM. testedThein comparative
this study provideanalysisa better
of thedrilling performance
performance as opposed
of all four drillingtofluid
the
conventional WBM. The comparative analysis of the performance of
systems was performed on samples from the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS). After the best two all four drilling fluid systems was
performed on samples
inhibitive drilling fluidfrom the Tuscaloosa
systems were usedMarineto drillShale (TMS). After
the samples obtainedthe best
fromtwo theinhibitive
Eagle Ford drilling
Shale
fluid systems were used to drill the samples obtained from the Eagle
formation, they were compared to the results obtained from the TMS. Figure 12 shows the effectFord Shale formation, they were of
compared to the results obtained from the TMS. Figure 12 shows the effect of
the drilling fluid systems on the torque and friction factor in both formations. The study revealed that the drilling fluid systems
on the torque
a lower andand
torque friction factorfactor
friction in bothwasformations.
realized The study
in the revealed
Eagle Ford that a lower as
formation torque and friction
opposed to the
factor was realized in the Eagle Ford formation as opposed to the Tuscaloosa
Tuscaloosa Marine Shale. A reduction of more than 60% was realized when the drilling samples Marine Shale. A reduction
were
of more than 60% was realized when the drilling samples were obtained
obtained from Eagle Ford. The low torque and friction factor realized with Eagle Ford Shale indicates from Eagle Ford. The low
torque
better and friction
drilling factor realized
performance with Eagle
at Eagle Ford Ford Shale indicates
compared to TMS. better
Underdrilling
similarperformance at Eagle
drilling conditions,
Ford compared to TMS. Under similar drilling conditions, drilling in Eagle
drilling in Eagle Ford will be more effective than in TMS. The low torque and friction factor obtained Ford will be more effective
than
withinthe
TMS. The low
inhibitive mudtorque and friction
systems indicatefactor obtainedimpact
the positive with the inhibitive
these mud systems
fluid systems have on indicate
drillingthein
positive impact these fluid systems have on drilling in these formations.
these formations. This emphasizes that the use of inhibitive mud systems is more crucial at TMS This emphasizes that the than
use
of
atinhibitive
Eagle Ford mud systems isthe
to optimize more crucial
drilling at TMS than
practices in theataforementioned
Eagle Ford to optimize the drilling
formation. Previous practices
studies
in the aforementioned
showed the effectiveness formation. Previousbrine,
of the formate studies showed
such the effectiveness
as cesium formate, inofdrilling
the formate brine, such
the HPHT shale
as cesium formate,
formations. These in drilling
fluid the HPHT
systems shale formations.
help reduce torque andThese drag fluid
during systems
shale help reduce
drilling torque and
operations and
drag during shale drilling operations
improve drilling operations [11,12,30]. and improve drilling operations [11,12,30].

14
WBM
12 1% KCl
2% KCl
10 Cesium Formate
Torque (in-Lbs)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WOB (Lbs)
Figure 10. Effect of the tested drilling fluid systems on torque during drilling.
Figure 10. Effect of the tested drilling fluid systems on torque during drilling.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 15 of 21
Energies
Energies 2020,
2020, 13,13, 5142 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 1515
of 22
of 22

0.25
0.25
WBM
WBM
11%
%KCl
KCl
0.2 2% KCl
2% KCl
0.2 Cesium Formate
Formate
Cesium
Friction factor

0.15
Friction factor

0.15

0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05

0
0 0 50 100 150
0 50 WOB (lbs) 100 150
WOB (lbs)
Figure 11. Effect of the tested drilling fluid systems on the friction factor during drilling.
Figure 11. Effect of the tested drilling fluid systems on the friction factor during drilling.
Figure 11. Effect of the tested drilling fluid systems on the friction factor during drilling.
12
12 2% KCl (Eagleford)
2% KCl(TMS)
2% KCl (Eagleford)
10 Cesium Formate(Eagleford)
2% KCl(TMS)
Cesium Formate(TMS)
10 Cesium Formate(Eagleford)
8 Cesium Formate(TMS)
Torque, in-lbs

8
Torque, in-lbs

6
4

4
2

2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 WOB,lbs
12. Effect of the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure
Figure 12. Effect of two inhibitive
the two mudmud
inhibitive systems (2 wt%
systems KCl KCl
(2 wt% and and
cesium formate)
cesium on torque
formate) in TMS
on torque in
and TMS
Eagleand
Ford.
Eagle Ford. WOB,lbs
5.3.2. ROP Optimization
Figure 12. Effect of the two inhibitive mud systems (2 wt% KCl and cesium formate) on torque in
TMS
The and
rate ofEagle Ford. (ROP) constitutes one of the most important parameters to evaluate when
penetration
analyzing drilling performance. The ROP refers to how fast we can drill. Most shale formations,
 Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

Energies 2020, 13, 5142 16 of 21

5.3.2. ROP Optimization
The rate of penetration (ROP) constitutes one of the most important parameters to evaluate when
such as TMS and
analyzing Eagle
drilling Ford, are characterized
performance. The ROP refers by to
a low
howdrilling
fast we rate. ThisMost
can drill. issueshale
is mostly due to factors
formations, such
suchas TMS and Eagle Ford, are characterized by a low drilling rate. This issue is mostly due to the
as bit-balling and pipe hole sloughing that are caused by the incompatibility between fluid
factors
system
suchand the formation.
as bit-balling and pipeIn this
holestudy, the effect
sloughing thatofareinhibitive
caused by mudthe systems (1 wt% between
incompatibility and 2 wt% theKCl
fluidand
cesium
system formate)
and theand the conventional
formation. WBM
In this study, theoneffect
the drilling rate was
of inhibitive mudevaluated.
systems (1The wt%rate
andof2penetration
wt% KCl
is characterized
and cesium formate)as a dependent
and the parameter
conventional thatWBM
can be onpredicted using
the drilling rateindependent
was evaluated. parameters,
The rate such
of
penetration
as weight is (WOB)
on bit characterized
and rotaryas a speed.
dependent Theparameter that can be
drilling conditions predicted
were using
consistent andindependent
all the same
for parameters,
the drilling suchtests asin weight
order toonfully
bit (WOB)
evaluate andtherotary
effectspeed.
of theThe drilling
drilling fluidconditions
systems.wereThe consistent
effect of the
fluid systems tested was evaluated in both TMS and Eagle Ford. Figure 13 shows the ROPsystems.
and all the same for the drilling tests in order to fully evaluate the effect of the drilling fluid profile of
theThe effectfluid
drilling of thesystems
fluid systems
testedtested
on TMS was core
evaluated in both
samples. TheTMS and Eagle
results showFord. Figure 13 shows
an increasing the
correlation
ROP profile
between the ROP of the
anddrilling
the WOB fluidforsystems testedfluid
all drilling on TMS core samples.
systems. Based on Thetheresults show anconventional
ROP profile, increasing
correlation between the ROP and the WOB for all drilling fluid
WBM showed the lowest ROP at various weights on bit (WOB) among the drilling fluid systems systems. Based on the ROP profile,
tested.
conventional WBM showed the lowest ROP at various weights on bit (WOB)
This result was an indication of the incompatibility issues associated with WBM. Among the inhibitive among the drilling fluid
systems tested. This result was an indication of the incompatibility issues associated with WBM.
mud systems tested, the cesium formate showed the highest rates followed by the 2 wt% KCl, and
Among the inhibitive mud systems tested, the cesium formate showed the highest rates followed by
finally the 1 wt% KCl. This analysis indicates that cesium formate would perform better and be the
the 2 wt% KCl, and finally the 1 wt% KCl. This analysis indicates that cesium formate would perform
most appropriate drilling fluid systems for reactive shale formations. However, due to the high cost of
better and be the most appropriate drilling fluid systems for reactive shale formations. However, due
cesium formate and the closeness in drilling performance between the cesium formate and the 2 wt%
to the high cost of cesium formate and the closeness in drilling performance between the cesium
KClformate
fluid system, the use of KCl fluid systems will be more suitable as it will be cost effective and
and the 2 wt% KCl fluid system, the use of KCl fluid systems will be more suitable as it will
simultaneously
be cost effective andthe
solve major concernsolve
simultaneously of a low drilling
the major rate inofreactive
concern shales. rate
a low drilling Thein two best inhibitive
reactive shales.
mud systems (cesium formate and 2 wt% KCl) were tested on core samples
The two best inhibitive mud systems (cesium formate and 2 wt% KCl) were tested on core samples obtained from Eagle Ford.
Only two fluid systems were tested due to the limitation on the number
obtained from Eagle Ford. Only two fluid systems were tested due to the limitation on the number of core samples from Eagle
Ford. A comparative
of core samples from analysis
EagleofFord.
drilling fluid performance
A comparative analysisin of
both formations
drilling was performed
fluid performance in this
in both
study. Figure was
formations 14 shows
performedthe ROPin thisprofile
study.inFigure
Eagle 14 Ford Shale
shows theand
ROP TMS. Theinprofile
profile shows
Eagle Ford thatand
Shale both
inhibitive
TMS. The mud systems
profile shows(cesium
that bothformate
inhibitive and
mud 2 wt%
systemsKCl) performed
(cesium formate better
and 2inwt%
EagleKCl)Ford Shale as
performed
compared
better in to the Ford
Eagle TMS.Shale These results were
as compared also
to the supported
TMS. by the
These results swelling
were indices obtained
also supported in both
by the swelling
indices obtained
formations in bothdrilling
for the tested formations
fluidfor the tested drilling fluid systems.
systems.

3.5
WBM
3 1% KCl
2% KCl
Cesium Formate
2.5
ROP, in/min

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WOB, lbs
Figure Rate
13.13.
Figure ofof
Rate penetration
penetrationprofile
profilefor
forthe
thedrilling
drilling fluid systems tested
fluid systems testedon
onTMS
TMScore
coresamples.
samples.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 17 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

3.5
2% KCl(Eagleford)
2% KCl (TMS)
3
Cesium Formate(Eagleford)
ROP, in/min
2.5 Cesium Formate (TMS)

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WOB, lbs
Figure 14. The rate of penetration (ROP) profile of cesium formate and 2 wt% KCl in Eagle Ford
and TMS.
Figure 14. The rate of penetration (ROP) profile of cesium formate and 2 wt% KCl in Eagle Ford and
TMS.
5.3.3. Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) Optimization
Another major parameter
5.3.3. Mechanical for measuring
Specific Energy drilling efficiency is the mechanical specific energy (MSE).
(MSE) Optimization
The MSE isAnother
definedmajoras the amount of energy required for removing
parameter for measuring drilling efficiency a unit of volume
is the mechanical rock. (MSE).
specific energy The MSE is
highly The
dependent on factors such as torque, weight on bit (WOB), rate of penetration
MSE is defined as the amount of energy required for removing a unit of volume rock. The MSE (ROP) andisrotary
speed highly
(RPM). Pessier et
dependent onal. [30]such
factors reported thatweight
as torque, drilling efficiency
on bit (WOB), rate canofbe improved
penetration by optimizing
(ROP) and rotary the
controllable
speed factors that will
(RPM). Pessier et eventually leadthat
al. [31] reported to adrilling
minimum MSE.can
efficiency In this study, the
be improved byMSE was computed
optimizing the
controllable factors that will eventually lead to a minimum MSE. In this study,
using the controllable factors, including torque, rate of penetration, rotary speed and WOB obtainedthe MSE was computed
duringusing the controllable
drilling operations.factors, including torque,
The calculation of therateMSE of was
penetration,
done usingrotarythe
speed and WOB
equation obtained
below. The MSE
during drilling operations. The calculation of the MSE was done using the equation below. The MSE
can be impacted by the mechanical efficiency during drilling. The mechanical efficiency is dependent
can be impacted by the mechanical efficiency during drilling. The mechanical efficiency is dependent
on theon bitthe
type, the formation and well trajectory. Amadi et al. [31] reported that the mechanical
bit type, the formation and well trajectory. Amadi et al. [32] reported that the mechanical
efficiency for directional
efficiency for directionalandandhorizontal
horizontaldrilling is assumed
drilling is assumedtoto bebe 12.5%.
12.5%.
 𝑊𝑂𝐵 120 × 𝜋 × 𝑅𝑃𝑀 × 𝑇 
𝑀𝑆𝐸 WOB 120 × π × RPM × T
MSE = = ( 𝐴𝐵 ++ 𝑅𝑂𝑃 × 𝐴𝐵
) (2) (2)
AB ROP × AB
The effect of the four drilling fluid systems (the conventional WBM and three inhibitive mud
The effectwas
systems) of the
firstfour drilling
evaluated usingfluid systems
the TMS (the conventional
core samples WBM
and the two best andfluid
drilling three inhibitive
systems were mud
systems) was
used to first evaluated
drill the using
Eagle Ford the TMS
samples for acore samplesanalysis
comparative and thewithtwothebestTMSdrilling fluidFigure
formation. systems15 were
used toshows
drill the
the MSE
Eagleprofile
Ford at various for
samples WOB for the tested analysis
a comparative drilling fluid
withsystems
the TMS in formation.
TMS. The profile
Figure 15
shows revealed
the MSEthat the highest
profile MSEWOB
at various was realized
for the with
testedthedrilling
conventional WBM, followed
fluid systems in TMS. byThe
the 1profile
wt% KCl,
revealed
then the 2 wt% KCl, and finally the cesium formate. The MSE realized with
that the highest MSE was realized with the conventional WBM, followed by the 1 wt% KCl, then the conventional WBM was
80% higher than that of the inhibitive mud systems (1 wt%, 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate). The
2 wt% KCl, and finally the cesium formate. The MSE realized with conventional WBM was 80% higher
drilling efficiency is indirectly proportional to the MSE. This implies that the inhibitive mud systems
than that
willofbethe
moreinhibitive
efficient mud systems
at drilling (1 wt%, 2 wt%
clay-concentrated KClformations
shale and cesium thanformate).
the WBM;The thisdrilling
supportsefficiency
the
is indirectly proportional to the MSE. This implies that the inhibitive
incompatibility between the conventional WBM and most shale formations. Among the mud systems will beinhibitive
more efficient
at drilling
mudclay-concentrated
systems, the cesiumshale formations
formate provided than the WBM;
the highest this supports
performance the incompatibility
as it required between
less energy to drill
the conventional
a volume of rock.WBM and most shale formations. Among the inhibitive mud systems, the cesium
formate provided the highest performance as it required less energy to drill a volume of rock.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 18 of 21
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

30,000
WBM
1% KCl
25,000 2% KCl
Cesium Formate

20,000
MSE (psi)

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WOB (lbs)
The mechanical
Figure 15.Figure specific
15. The mechanical energy
specific profile
energy profile for thetested
for the tested drilling
drilling fluid fluid systems
systems in the TMS.
in the TMS.

The two bestThe two best drilling

drilling fluid systems
fluid systems werewere selected and
selected and their
their effect on MSE
effect in bothinTMS
on MSE andTMS
both Eagleand Eagle
Ford Shale was evaluated. Figure 16 shows the MSE profile of the tested drilling fluid in both
Ford Shale formations.
was evaluated. Figure 16 shows the MSE profile of the tested drilling fluid in both formations.
The result shows that the minimum MSE was realized in the Eagle Ford formation for
The result shows
both fluidthat the minimum
systems. A more than MSE
60% was realized
reduction in MSE in was
the realized
Eagle Fordwhenformation for both
drilling an Eagle fluid systems.
Ford core
A more than 60% in
sample reduction
place of TMS.in MSE was realized
The minimum when drilling
MSE obtained with thean Eagle
Eagle FordFord core sample
formation correlatesintoplace
the of TMS.
low torque in the formation. Since a high torque is required for drilling stronger
The minimum MSE obtained with the Eagle Ford formation correlates to the low torque in the formation. rock, the low torque
in the Eagle Ford formation indicates a lower rock strength compared to TMS. The high quartz
Since a highcontent,
torquewhich is required for drilling stronger rock, the low torque in the Eagle Ford formation indicates
is more than twice that of the Eagle Ford formation, is an indication of the high rock
a lower rockstrength
strength compared
in the TMS. The tolow
TMS.MSEThe high quartz
obtained content,
in the Eagle Fordwhich is more
formation can bethan twice that
attributed to theof the Eagle
Ford formation,
improved is an indication
drilling of theand
performance high therock
weakstrength in the
rock strength in TMS. The low
the formation. MSEsimilar
Under obtained in the Eagle
drilling
conditions,
Ford formation can be theattributed
use of inhibitive
to themud systemsdrilling
improved (KCl andperformance
cesium formate) andwill
thebeweak
more rock
effective in
strength in the
Eagle Ford, as shown in the MSE and the rate of penetration (ROP) profile for both formations. The
formation. MSE
Under similar drilling conditions, the use of inhibitive mud systems (KCl and cesium formate)
results also indicate a higher rock strength in the TMS as opposed to Eagle Ford.
will be more effective in Eagle Ford, as shown in the MSE and the rate of penetration (ROP) profile for both
formations.Energies
The 2020,
MSE 13,results
x FOR PEERalso indicate a higher rock strength in the TMS as opposed to19Eagle
REVIEW of 22 Ford.

18,000
2% KCl (Eagleford)
16,000 2% KCl (TMS)
Cesium Formate (Eagleford)
14,000 Cesium Formate (TMS)

12,000
MSE, psi

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WOB, lbs
Figure 16. The mechanical
Figure specific energy
16. The mechanical specific(MSE)
energyprofile
(MSE) for cesium
profile formate
for cesium and 2and
formate wt%2 KCl
wt% in TMS
KCl and Eagle Ford.
in TMS
and Eagle Ford.

6. Conclusions
The study presents the inhibitive drilling fluid systems’ performance in clay-dominated shale
formations of Eagle Ford and Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS). The performance of the fluid systems
was analyzed by evaluating their impact on the drilling parameters, including the torque and friction
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 19 of 21

6. Conclusions
The study presents the inhibitive drilling fluid systems’ performance in clay-dominated shale
formations of Eagle Ford and Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS). The performance of the fluid systems
was analyzed by evaluating their impact on the drilling parameters, including the torque and friction
factor, rate of penetration (ROP) and mechanical specific energy (MSE). The drilling fluid systems
tested included the conventional WBM and three sets of inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% and 2% KCl
and cesium formate). The following conclusions were drawn from the experimental investigation.

• The cesium formate showed the lowest swelling index among the tested drilling fluid systems
with an index of about 4% followed by the 2% KCl systems.
• The Eagle Ford Shale formation registered the lowest swelling index for all drilling fluid systems
when compared to TMS. This was supported by the presence of a high concentration of swelling
clays in TMS.
• A very low friction factor and torque was reported during drilling when using inhibitive mud
(cesium formate and KCl mud systems). The inhibitive mud systems showed a higher drilling
performance as compared to the conventional WBM systems.
• The minimum friction factor and torque were realized in Eagle Ford as compared to TMS,
indicating a higher drilling performance in Eagle Ford.
• The highest rate of penetration during drilling was realized with cesium formate, followed by
the 2 wt% KCl mud, while the lowest was associated with the conventional WBM. No major
difference in ROP was realized between the cesium formate and the KCl systems. The KCl mud
systems can be an alternative to cesium formate to save cost.
• A minimum mechanical specific energy was realized with the cesium formate and the 2 wt% KCl
mud system, while the conventional WBM showed the maximum MSE, which was 80% higher
than that of the inhibitive mud systems (1 wt% and 2 wt% KCl and cesium formate).
• The MSE is highly dependent on the drill bit selected and the bit efficiency. The normalized MSE
by the bit mechanical efficiency minimizes the effect of the bit.
• A higher rate of penetration (ROP) and lower mechanical specific energy (MSE) were obtained in
the Eagle Ford formation as opposed to TMS. This confirmed that the drilling using inhibitive
mud systems could be more effective in Eagle Ford than TMS.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.K. and S.S.; methodology, N.K.; writing—original draft preparation,
N.K.; writing—review and editing, S.S.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially funded by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
under Award Number DE-FE0031575 (TUSCALOOSA MARINE SHALE LABORATORY).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to extend their gratitude to all the service companies that provided
the materials needed for this study. The authors would also like to thank Jeff McCaskill of the Well Construction
and Technology Center, the University of Oklahoma. Their gratitude also goes to Stuart Leon of Cabot Corporation.
This material is based upon work partially supported by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology
Laboratory under Award Number DE-FE0031575 (TUSCALOOSA MARINE SHALE LABORATORY).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Acronyms
AB Cross-Sectional Area
DAQ Data Acquisition System
Ef Mechanical Efficiency
HPHT High-Pressure High-Temperature
Lb/bbl Pounds per Barrel
MSE Mechanical Specific Energy
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 20 of 21

NDT Non-Drilling Time

NPT Non-Productive Time
OBM Oil-Based Mud
ROP Rate of Penetration
RPM Rotary Speed
T Torque
TMS Tuscaloosa Marine Shale
WBM Water-Based Mud
WOB Weight on Bit
Greeks
σ Swelling Index (Equation (2))

References
1. O’Brien, D.E.; Chenevert, M.E. Stabilizing sensitive shales with inhibited, potassium-based drilling fluids.
J. Pet. Technol. 1973, 25, 1089–1100. [CrossRef]
2. Awal, M.R.; Khan, M.S.; Mohiuddin, M.A.; Abdulraheem, A.; Azeemuddin, M. A new approach to borehole
trajectory optimisation for increased hole stability. In SPE Middle East Oil Show; Society of Petroleum
Engineers: Dallas, TX, USA, 2001.
3. Pašić, B.; Gaurina Med̄imurec, N.; Matanović, D. Wellbore instability: Causes and consequences.
Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik 2007, 19, 87–98.
4. Santarelli, F.J.; Chenevert, M.E.; Osisanya, S.O. On the Stability of Shales and Its Consequences in Terms of
Swelling and Wellbore Stability. In Proceedings of the SPE/IADC drilling Conference, Louisiana, NO, USA,
18–21 February 1992. SPE-23886-MS. [CrossRef]
5. Mohiuddin, M.A.; Awal, M.R.; Abdulraheem, A.; Khan, K. A New Diagnostic Approach to Identify the Causes of
Borehole Instability Problems in an Offshore Arabian Field; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Dallas, TX, USA,
2001. [CrossRef]
6. Mody, F.K.; Hale, A. Borehole-stability model to couple the mechanics and chemistry of drilling-fluid/shale
interactions. J. Pet. Technol. 1993, 45, 1093–1101. [CrossRef]
7. Van Oort, E. Physio-Chemical Stabilization of Shales. SPE Oilfield Chem; International Symposium: Houston, TX,
USA, 1997; SPE-37263-MS. [CrossRef]
8. Paiaman, A.M.; Al-Askari MK, G.; Salmani, B.; AlAnazi, B.D.; Masihi, M. Effect of Drilling Fluid Properties
on Rate of Penetration. NAFTA 2009, 60, 129–134.
9. Bourgoyne, A.T.; Young, F.S., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E. Applied Drilling Engineering SPE Textbook
Series; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2003; Volume 2.
10. Konate, N.; Ezeakacha, C.P.; Salehi, S.; Mokhtari, M. Application of an Innovative Drilling Simulator Set Up
to Test Inhibitive Mud Systems for Drilling Shales. In Proceedings of the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 9–10 April 2019. SPE-195189-MS. [CrossRef]
11. Downs, J.D. Formate Brines: Novel Drilling and Completion Fluids for Demanding Environments; Society of
Petroleum Engineers: Dallas, TX, USA, 1993. [CrossRef]
12. Howard, S.K. Formate Brines for Drilling and Completion: State of the Art; Society of Petroleum Engineers:
Dallas, TX, USA, 1995. [CrossRef]
13. Mancini, E.A.; Puckett, T.M. Transgressive-Regressive Cycles: Application to Petroleum Exploration for Hydrocarbons
Associated with Cretaceous Shelf Carbonates and Coastal and Fluvial-Deltaic Siliciclastics; SEPM Foundation:
Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, 2002; pp. 173–199.
14. Pair, J.D. The Tuscaloosa Marine Shale: Geological History, Depositional Analysis, and Exploration Potential.
Bachelor of Science Thesis. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 68. 2017. Available online: https:
//scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/68 (accessed on 29 September 2020).
15. Dubiel, R.F.; Pitman, J.K. Extended Abstract: Analysis of the Tuscaloosa-Woodbine total petroleum system
and implications for assessing conventional gas resources in the downdip trend. GCAGS Trans. 2004,
54, 54–56.
Energies 2020, 13, 5142 21 of 21

16. Lowery, C.M.; Cunningham, R.; Barrie, C.D.; Bralower, T.; Snedden, J.W. The northern Gulf of Mexico
during OAE2 and the relationship between water depth and black shale development. Paleoceanography
2017, 32, 1316–1335. [CrossRef]
17. John, C.J.; Moncrief, J.E.; Jones, B.L.; Harder, B.J. Regional Extent and Hydrocarbon Potential of the Tuscaloosa
Marine Shale, United States Gulf Coast. GCAGS Trans. 1997, 47, 395–402.
18. Borrok, D.M.; Wan, Y.; Wei, M.; Mokhtari, M. Heterogeneity of the Mineralogy and Organic Content of the
Tuscaloosa Marine Shale. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2019, 109, 717–731. [CrossRef]
19. Condon, S.M.; Dyman, T.S. Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources in the Upper
Cretaceous Navarro and Taylor Groups; U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–H: Western Gulf
Province, TX, USA, 2003; Chapter 22006; 42p.
20. Dawson, W.C. Limestone Microfacies and Sequence Stratigraphy: Eagle Ford Group (Cenomanian-Turonian)
North-Central Texas outcrops. GCAGS Trans. 1997, XLVII, 99–106.
21. Donovan, A.D.; Staerker, T.S. Sequence stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford (Boquillas) Formation in the subsurface
of South Texas and outcrops of West Texas. GCAGS Trans. 2010, 60, 861–899.
22. Dawson, W.C. WR Almon, Eagle Ford Shale Variability: Sedimentologic Influences on Source and Reservoir
Character in an Unconventional Resource Unit. GCAGS Trans. 2010, 60, 181–190.
23. Hentz, T.F. SC Ruppel, Regional Stratigraphic and Rock Characteristics of Eagle Ford Shale in its Play
Area: Maverick Basin to East Texas Basin: AAPG Search and Discovery Article 10325. Available online:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/10325hentz/ndx_hentz.pdf.html (accessed on
21 October 2015).
24. Mullen, J. Petrophysical Characterization of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. In Proceedings of
the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada,
19–21 October 2010.
25. Saasen, A.; Løklingholm, G. The Effect of Drilling Fluid Rheological Properties on Hole Cleaning.
In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 26–28 February 2002.
26. Konate, N.; Magzoub, M.; Salehi, S.; Ghalambor, A.; Mokhtari, M. Evaluation of Mud Systems for
Drilling High Clay Shales in Dynamic Conditions: Comparison of Inhibitive Systems. In Proceedings
of the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, USA,
19–21 February 2020. [CrossRef]
27. Van Oort, E.; Ripley, D.; Ward, I. Silicate-based drilling fluids: Competent, cost-effective and benign solutions
to wellbore stability problems. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA,
12–15 March 1996; pp. 189–203.
28. Patel, A.; Gomez, S.L. Shale Inhibition: What Works? In Proceedings of the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 8–10 April 2013. [CrossRef]
29. Saasen, A.; Jordal, O.H.; Burkhead, D.; Berg, P.C.; Løklingholm, G.; Pedersen, E.S.; Harris, M.J. Drilling
HT/HP Wells Using a Cesium Formate Based Drilling Fluid. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 26–28 February 2002. [CrossRef]
30. Pessier, R.C.; Fear, M.J. Quantifying Common Drilling Problems with Mechanical Specific Energy and
Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, USA, 4–7 October 1992. [CrossRef]
31. Amadi, W.K.; Iyalla, I. Application of Mechanical Specific Energy Techniques in Reducing Drilling Cost
in Deepwater Development. In Proceedings of the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference,
Galveston, TX, USA, 20–21 June 2012. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).